The transitional nature of law school makes institutional knowledge difficult to maintain. In an effort to ameliorate that difficulty, what follows is a brief history of the Washington Law Review compiled mostly from the history published by the Law Review in 1988.
The Washington Law Review had two starts. The first issue was published in 1919 under the editorship of Dean John T. Condon. Financial difficulties forced the school to abandon the project after just one issue. In 1925, the Review was revived and a second Volume I, Number 1 was published. The Review has been continuously published ever since. The first student Editor in Chief was Paul Ashley, and the publication was nursed through the early difficult years by Dean Alfred J. Schweppe.
In 1936, the Washington Law Review joined forces with the Washington State Bar Journal. This provided financial stability for the Law Review, and boosted circulation to one of the highest circulation of any law review in the nation, as every member of the Washington bar received a copy as part of his membership dues. The growth and financial stability gained by this arrangement, and the desire to expand its scope to a journal of national stature led to the dissolution of this arrangement in 1961.
The original Law Review "office" was a tabletop in the library of what is now Savery Hall on the main campus. When the original Condon Hall (now Gowen Hall) was built on the main campus, the Review's offices shifted to a group of rooms in the basement. The move to the current Condon Hall saw a shift back to the top floor, where the Review occupies a suite of offices in the "penthouse" on the eighth floor. At the time of the move, the faculty objected to the students having the best view in the building, although as then-Business Manager, Professor Marian G. Gallagher noted, it was a "sit-down view," appropriate since Law Review members do most of their work sitting down. When the law school moves to Gates Hall in 2003, the Review will again move to the basement, in a suite.
The original Review began as a student publication. A faculty editorial board was introduced in 1929 to provide continuity from year to year. The role of the faculty board, led by the faculty Editor in Chief, varied over the years. Originally the faculty board selected and solicited articles. Later they functioned as advisors. Throughout this period, the student board was led by a "President," equivalent to today's Editor in Chief. In 1948, the faculty board was phased out, and a faculty advisor put in its place. Shortly thereafter, the members of the Review were embroiled in a controversy with the then faculty advisor. Finding the faculty "advisor" was in fact running the Review, the members discussed their concerns with the advisor and the Dean. The board indicated that if management of the Review was not turned over to the students, subject only to consultation and advice of the faculty, the Board would resign en masse. Shortly thereafter the advisor was replaced. In the early 1960's, the Law Review was removed from the direct control of the University, and incorporated. Today the editorial policy is set by the student Editor in Chief, and the daily operations are managed by the student Editorial Board, with the assistance and guidance of the faculty advisor and the Board of Trustees.
The first members of Law Review were appointed based on scholarship. Unfortunately, that led to some early members having little interest in the Review, which led to the reorganization and appointment of a faculty Editor in Chief. In those early days, the Review rarely published on time or even on a regular basis. However, with support from the Dean and with a focus on Northwest law, the Review survived the early lean years, gaining in popularity.
From the early days, women had a role on Law Review equal to that of the men. Muriel Mawer, class of 1935, and the 1934 Legislation Editor, credited Law Review with giving her more confidence, and helping the bar and courts to accept her as a qualified attorney. Ms. Mawer was later appointed one of the six state bar examiners, and later served as the first woman chair. Another well-known woman editor was Marian G. Gallagher, former Professor of Law and Law Librarian, Class of 1937. However, the rest of society had not yet caught up. Joann R. Locke served as Editor in Chief in 1951. She recalled that at the time there were two lounges, one for the male law students, and a separate lounge for the women, which included six students, and an number of secretaries. Despite her credentials, Ms. Locke found it difficult to get a job after law school. As she recalled, firms were only interested in her as a secretary. However, Ms. Locke had never learned to type, believing (rightly) that if she could type law firms would have received a top legal scholar for secretarial wages. Similarly, the Law Review annual banquet was held at the College Club. At that time, women were not allowed in the front door of the College Club. As a result, female Law Review members had to go up the back steps to the banquet. Another archaic rule from the banquet was that spouses were not invited. This changed in when Justice William O. Douglas was invited to a Law Review banquet accompanied by his spouse, a young lawyer. From that day on spouses have been welcome at the annual banquet.
Law school in the early days of the Review was very different from law school of today. At that time, students could enter law school after two years of college. After three years of study, students graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree. To obtain a J.D., students were required to put in extra work and write a doctoral thesis. This was changed in 1938, when the law school curriculum was expanded to four years in order to cover the new areas of Income Taxation, Administrative Law, Social Security Law, Labor Law and Public Utilities. At that time, the J.D. degree was dropped in favor of the L.L.B and the L.L.M. Law school remained a four-year program until 1952.
Law Review was different as well. In the days before Westlaw and Lexis, students met weekly to review the advance sheets from federal and state courts, and would assign case notes to student writers. The short notes were designed to call attention to the case. Editorializing about the case was permitted, but not required. Every year one entire issue was devoted to the proceedings of the state bar, and every attorney in Washington received a copy. Of course, the largest firm in Seattle at that time had 12 attorneys.
In 1947, the Review took its first steps outside of Northwest law by establishing a Far East section. Originally this section reviewed Japanese law under the administration of General Douglas MacArthur. Many members of the Washington bar objected to this use of their bar dues. Upon publication of an article by a renowned Harvard scholar entitled "Justice in Russia," members of the bar, primarily from Eastern Washington, objected vigorously, claiming "there is no justice in Russia, why are you publishing this propaganda. Eventually the Far East Section succumbed to the criticism, but the ground was laid for the eventual publication of our sister journal, the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, founded in 1990.
In the mid 1960's, under the direction of Dean Lehan Tunks and Faculty Advisor Richard O. Kummert, the Law Review began to change its focus from a provincial, regional review to a review of national stature. The name was officially changed to the University of Washington Law Review, but due to a printing error, the new name was never printed. The name remains Washington Law Review to this day.
The national prestige of the Review was greatly enhanced by a stroke of good fortune during the Watergate scandal of the early 1970's. Professor Bestor had reviewed a book by Harvard Professor Raoul Berger on the constitutional history of impeachment. Professor Berger took issue with the analysis and wrote a scathing reply. Shortly thereafter, the infamous Watergate tapes were revealed and calls for the President's impeachment became common. The House Select Committee on Impeachment used the only recent scholarship on impeachment, the Washington Law Review articles, to establish legal and political positions for the impeachment vote in the House.
Of course Law Review isn't all work - great friendships have been forged in the offices of Law Review. In 1966, Editors Bill Houger, Michael Garvey, and Ken Schubert decided that they already knew enough law and didn't want to wait five or six years to become partners. In the Law Review offices in the basement of old Condon Hall, the three agreed to form what was to become Houger Garvey & Schubert. In 1974, another former Law Review member Stan Barer joined the firm. When Bill Houger left the firm, the name was changed to the current Garvey Schubert Barer, one of Seattle's leading law firms.
In 1963, the Law Review added a new staff position, Doughnut Editor. This person was responsible for picking up doughnuts for the editorial staff each morning. Although never recognized on the masthead, this editor was remembered well by his classmates. Today the tradition continues, albeit in a more equitable manner with each member taking his or her turn as "Doughnut Editor."
Perhaps the oddest non-work related story coming out of Law Review comes from 1983, where Operations Executive Editor Karen Boxx (now Professor Boxx) arranged the Law Review Olympics, holding contests such as elevator relay races, library cart races, wallball into mailboxes, a silver dollar roll down the hallway, a penny drop down the stairwell, and a competition for the most obscene quote from Lexis.
While membership on Law Review is no guarantee of success in the law (witness the Watergate felon), you will gain experience unavailable anywhere else. You will edit articles written by your peers and by professional authors. You will run the Review. And you will write an article. For a brief shining moment you will be the expert on your chosen topic. Alas, this, like all else in the law will be transitory. However, you will leave here with skills that will serve you well throughout the rest of your career.
At any rate, we welcome you to the Washington Law Review. Some day soon when you are attempting to work with a laconic report found in an ancient Year Book such as this:
"Distraint for Beasts. Malmesthorp said Simon's homage was in arrears forasmuch as un cheval un hawke un robe et un goose at Mishaelmas wherefore the abbott distrained vingt et un neat cattle. But the Court was against him. And Hengham said avec de son tort also. And it was adjourned." 1
We hope the thought of your place in the long tradition of Law Review brings some comfort.
1 The Abbott of Twickenham's Case, settling the rule that Distraint would not lie for a breach of feudal tenure.